This study evaluated the usability of the Rhode Island Mobile Cognitive Assessment Tool (RIMCAT), a proctored digital cognitive screening measure to assess its potential for self-administration.
Methods
100 participants (Healthy Controls [HC] n = 50; Cognitively Impaired [CI] n = 50) were recruited, and 90 completed the RIMCAT twice, with verbal prompts when necessary. Participants then completed an exit survey regarding their experience.
Results
All HC completed the RIMCAT, but four CI individuals could not. Most finished in under 30 min. HC (M = 2.18, SD = 1.93) required significantly fewer prompts during the first RIMCAT administration compared to the CI group (M = 3.82, SD = 2.87). Both groups needed fewer prompts on the second visit, with prompts often related to input methods, button use, and instruction comprehension.
Conclusions
The RIMCAT shows promise for self-administration, particularly with minor modifications that could improve clarity, interface design, and user experience for optimal usability and self-administration.
SabbaghMBoadaMBorsonS, et al.Rationale for early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (mci) supported by emerging digital technologies. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2020;7(3):158-164. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.19
3.
SabbaghMNBoadaMBorsonS, et al.Early detection of mild cognitive impairment (mci) in primary care. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2020;7(3):165-170. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.21
4.
ÖhmanFHassenstabJBerronDSchöllMPappKV. Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement Amst Neth. 2021;13(1):e12217. doi:10.1002/dad2.12217
5.
ChanJYCYauSTYKwokTCYTsoiKKF. Diagnostic performance of digital cognitive tests for the identification of MCI and dementia: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev. 2021;72:101506. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2021.101506
6.
MaruffPThomasECysiqueL, et al.Validity of the cogstate brief battery: relationship to standardized tests and sensitivity to cognitive impairment in mild traumatic brain injury, schizophrenia, and AIDS dementia complex. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2009;24(2):165-178. doi:10.1093/arclin/acp010
7.
SandbergMA. Cambridge neuropsychological testing automated battery. Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer, New York, NY; 2011:480-482.
8.
YoungSRLattieEGBerryABL, et al.Remote cognitive screening of healthy older adults for primary care with the mycog mobile app: iterative design and usability evaluation. JMIR Form Res. 2023;7:e42416. doi:10.2196/42416
9.
YoungSRDworakEMByrneGJ, et al.Remote self-administration of cognitive screeners for older adults prior to a primary care visit: pilot cross-sectional study of the reliability and usability of the mycog mobile screening app. JMIR Form Res. 2024;8:e54299. doi:10.2196/54299
10.
ZeilerMDietzelNHaugF, et al.A user-centered design approach for a screening app for people with cognitive impairment (digiDEM-SCREEN): development and usability study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2025;12:e65022. doi:10.2196/65022
11.
ZygourisSSegkouliSTriantafyllidisA, et al.Usability of the virtual supermarket test for older adults with and without cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2022;6(1):229-234. doi:10.3233/ADR-210064
12.
AmirpourAEckerbladJThorellABergmanLNilssonU. Usability and feasibility of a digital cognitive screening tool measuring older adults’ early postoperative neurocognitive recovery: a protocol for a pilot study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e070404. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070404
13.
PappKVRentzDMMaruffP, et al.The computerized cognitive composite (C3) in A4, an Alzheimer’s disease secondary prevention trial. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2021;8(1):59-67. doi:10.14283/jpad.2020.38
14.
MitznerTLSmarrCARogersWAFiskAD. Considering older adults’ perceptual capabilities in the design process. The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research. Cambridge University Press; 2015:2, 1051-1079.
15.
NiksiratKSSilpasuwanchaiCWangZFanJRenX. Age-related differences in gross motor skills. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Interactive Technology and Ageing Populations; 20–22 Oct, 2016; Kochi, Japan. ACM; 2016:109-118. doi:10.1145/2996267.2996278
16.
KorthauerLESullivanSCZammittiMG, et al.Reliability and validity of the Rhode Island mobile cognitive assessment tool. In: Alzheimers Dement Diagn Assess Dis Monit. Wiley, UnitedStates. Published online in press.
17.
CiesielskaNSokołowskiRMazurEPodhoreckaMPolak-SzabelaAKędziora-KornatowskaK. Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test better suited than the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) detection among people aged over 60? meta-analysis. Psychiatr Pol. 2016;50(5):1039-1052. doi:10.12740/PP/45368
18.
TremontGPapandonatosGDSpringateB, et al.Use of the telephone-administered Minnesota Cognitive Acuity Screen to detect mild cognitive impairment. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2011;26(7):555-562. doi:10.1177/1533317511428151
McKhannGMKnopmanDSChertkowH, et al.The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2011;7(3):263-269. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005
21.
AlbertMSDeKoskySTDicksonD, et al.The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer's Dement. 2011;7(3):270-279. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008
22.
BondiMWEdmondsECJakAJ, et al.Neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment improves diagnostic precision, biomarker associations, and progression rates. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42(1):275-289. doi:10.3233/JAD-140276
23.
JakAJBondiMWDelano-WoodL, et al.Quantification of five neuropsychological approaches to defining mild cognitive impairment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr. 2009;17(5):368-375. doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e31819431d5
24.
O’ConnorCJoffeH. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:1609406919899220. doi:10.1177/1609406919899220
25.
PachisJAZonneveldKLM. Comparison of prompting procedures to teach internet skills to older adults. J Appl Behav Anal. 2019;51(1):173-187. doi:10.1002/jaba.519
26.
WeizenbaumELHsiehSMolinareC, et al.Validation of the multi-day boston remote assessment of neurocognitive health (BRANCH) among cognitively impaired & unimpaired older adults. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2025;12(3):100057. doi:10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100057
27.
VaportzisEGiatsi ClausenMGowAJ. Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1687. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01687
28.
JaspersMSteenTBosCGeenenM. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inf. 2004;73(11-12):781-795. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003
29.
OhSSKimKAKimMOhJChuSHChoiJ. Measurement of digital literacy among older adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(2):e26145. doi:10.2196/26145
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
